London Borough of Newham v CA

Deliberate obstruction of a court order intended to locate and protect a vulnerable child in local-authority care is a serious contempt requiring a sentence that marks the unacceptability of such conduct. The court may impose separate consecutive sentences for contempt in the face of the court and breaches of a collection order. In assessing sentence, the court must have regard to the need to protect vulnerable young people and to the seriousness of conduct that impedes their recovery and return to care. Cooperation after apprehension may mitigate sentence, but does not remove the need for severe punishment.

The London Borough of Newham brought committal proceedings concerning Qasim Shah’s conduct in relation to an adolescent girl in its care who had absconded and was considered vulnerable to sexual exploitation.

A recovery order under section 50 of the Children Act 1989 was followed by collection orders made in the High Court. The girl was later found at Mr Shah’s property. He admitted misleading the court, concealing knowledge of her whereabouts, assisting arrangements for her absconding, maintaining contact with her, and attempting to impede police entry to recover her.

The central issues were whether the admitted conduct constituted contempt and breaches of the collection order, and the appropriate sentence.

1. The admitted conduct constituted contempt in the face of the court and multiple breaches of the collection order. Mr Shah had lied when questioned by the court, failed to disclose information relevant to the child’s whereabouts, and attempted to obstruct police access to the property where she was found.

2. Disobedience of court orders is particularly serious where the orders are directed to locating and safeguarding a vulnerable child in local-authority care. The court must treat conduct that deliberately impedes the child’s recovery or protection with severity. The sentence must mark that such behaviour is wholly unacceptable.

3. The court imposed six months’ imprisonment for contempt in the face of the court and three months’ imprisonment for the breaches of the collection order, to be served consecutively.

4. The sentences would otherwise have been longer. The court gave credit for Mr Shah’s full cooperation after being found with the child, his attendance at court on more than one occasion, and his assistance to the local authority with further information.

5. The local authority was directed to make formal complaints to the Metropolitan Police for investigation of possible offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The court expressly stated that it was not determining any alleged sexual offence.